I haven't read this one, Brad. Sounds interesting.

But I'm drawn to the idea of God animating all things at all time; that things need some kind of motivating force in order to remain in existence.

It's a most compelling intuition and one which the mind seems very naturally drawn to. The contingent nature of creation implies a source for the existence of creatures. I don't see how this basic philosophical point can be convincingly negated, but, as you also noted, one's personal life experience can leave one wondering about the *nature* of that source of existence.

I just watched an incredible documentary (particularly for PBS and particularly considering that actual real life honest-to-goodness scientists were involved) titled "Unlocking the Mystery of Life." It delved into "irreducible complexity" and some of the problems of Darwinism. I couldn't friggin' believe that I saw a few scientists say things like "Well, if one is searching for truth than if intelligent design seems like the best answer then so be it." I about fell off my chair.

Thanks, JB, for keeping us on the cutting edge.

Brad, do you remember the name of that documentary? Sounds really good!

And yeah, you can always depend on JB to keep us up-to-date on things.

quote:

Brad, do you remember the name of that documentary? Sounds really good!

It was "Unlocking the Mystery of Life." And one of the must-read books (haven't read it yet) referred to in the program was William A. Dembski's "The Design Inference".

quote:

Sounds really good!

It was better than good. It was great. The gist of it was the Darwinism can indeed count for small changes over time but the problem is that those small changes work within the context of the DNA code. Apparently there aren't many (if any) sound explanations for how DNA could evolve via natural selection � it's too complex. One guy tried it with a notion of something like "irresistible chemistry" or something like that (can't think of the name at the moment). The idea was that enzymes could, because of their natural attractions to each other, spontaneously assemble themselves into proteins. The author of this theory later admitted that it just wasn't working. Proteins were too complex and even the simplest of cells used hundreds of them to function. He smashed head-on into irreducible complexity.

The other main point was how life got started in the first place. Darwinism accounts for passing on mutational advantages of existing organisms but this process does not come into play to CREATE and organism from scratch out of inorganic matter.

The documentary also spent a good amount of time looking at the workings of a bacterial flagellum. It has a tail, a rotor, motor and all kinds of parts that allow the flagellum to rotate at over 100,000 RPM. It can come to a complete stop within a quarter of a rotation and reverse direction. Seemingly all the intricate parts HAVE to be in place for the thing to work. A bacteria with just, say, a motionless "tail" sticking out of the end of it would be of no advantage and would not be naturally selected. The consensus, at least on this program, was it showed all the attributes of intelligent design.

And the crux of the whole story lead to the conclusion that intelligent design must be considered as a possible, logical, and even likely hypothesis. The documentary went into a little explanation of how we, in the real world, distinguish (so easily) the signs of intelligent design (say, a few words written in the sand or an image engraved in a rock) from non-intelligent random things. They went into depth (things I'd never seen portrayed quite so well) of the whole process of DNA being split by some thing (a protein, I guess), then the bits being copied onto messenger RNA, then the RNA passing through a "gate" (presumably outside of the nucleus, I think) where it then moved on to a "station" where it was meticulously met with other bits of things that touched RNA and slowly assembled a protein out of bits of enzymes. Then this assemblage was moved into what could best be described as some sort of hollow tube (with the door shutting behind it) whose job was to help the protein fold to the correct shape. Then the door would open and the protein was on its way to do whatever. You couldn't help be left with a sense of wonder.

No, they didn't go so far as mention God by name but they didn't have to. One was left (at least I was left) with a fascination at the cleverness of the design and the designer. If one were to create life along with (and within) the laws of nature, an organism of fixed characteristics would be doomed to extinction. Organisms must adapt to changing circumstances; things like the climate. If they can't then, given millions of years, I think you could just about guarantee extinction. So you have a creator or "cosmic consciousness" or intelligent unconscious universe (it that makes any sense or means anything) that builds a machine so complex that it can change itself. The natural question you then run into is whether this intelligent designer actually created man (or dogs or trees) or if they were simply expressions of the possibilities of life, life that had adapted to its surroundings. But the documentary did point out that some changes are so profound that you were left to make the conclusion on your own that Darwinian evolution handled the fine points while something else was at work doing the "big picture" stuff, such as being the formal causality behind birds growing wings and taking flight or other things that might run into problems with irreducible complexity (perhaps even the formation of major organs).

Anyway, it was fascinating to see such a un-PC discussion on, of all places, PBS.

Designs on Us: Conservatives on Darwin vs. ID.
By David Klinghoffer

The gist of this article (which is a good one) is something I've personally run into as well: scientists (and others) who put a higher premium on maintaining established territory (and particularly their ideology and biases) than on the search for truth.

Again and again, I go back to this page] and the ensuing discussion. Recognizing the different concerns between the positivist and philosophic perspectives would go a long way to bringing sanity to the present discussions.

I have to say that, for the most part, I think the religious folk are at fault in escalating the present turmoil. They want intelligent design (read: Creation Science, v. 2.0) taught as "science," when it is, minimally, a philosophic position. Furthermore, they perpetrate a "False Dilemma Fallacy" by setting up ID as an alternative explanation to evolution and suggesting that one has to choose between. That's just plain wrong, and smacks of the very kind of crossing of boundaries between church and state that liberals often lament in other less-convincing cases. And I see that now even Bush has gotten into the swing of things.

Evolution is explanation in the positivist perspective, which is incapable of speaking of "purpose" or "meaning" except in the most literal and pragmatic sense. It's a good theory, explaining many, many things -- mainly, the mechanism for diversification and transmission of traits through time. There are still "holes" and open questions like those raised by Brad, above. That doesn't invalidate the theory, however, nor should it justify the presentation of philosophic and theistic viewpoints as alternatives. These can and should be taught, but not as science. To do otherwise muddies the waters, imo, and I see that even good conservatives like Charles Krauthammer agree.

I have to say that, for the most part, I think the religious folk are at fault in escalating the present turmoil. They want intelligent design (read: Creation Science, v. 2.0) taught as "science," when it is, minimally, a philosophic position. Furthermore, they perpetrate a "False Dilemma Fallacy" by setting up ID as an alternative explanation to evolution and suggesting that one has to choose between.

Phil, I�m sure that is so in some instances. Maybe that�s even the major thrust of I.D. proponents. But your very characterization here of I.D. proponents perhaps goes to the heart of the matter. There�s much, much talk (perhaps because there�s much to talk about, of course) regarding motivations of the two sides. But regardless of motivations, territories to hold, and agendas to push, there are some fascinating elements and issues regarding ID that gets lost in the shuffle (and I think one who is in search of the truth should be sensitive to this because that is the purpose of some people on one side of this debate). And I think it is not correct to say the ID should not be taught as a science because it is the very technique used to discriminate between static and would-be intelligence-producing signals regarding SETI. It is a legitimate scientific discipline to figure out what is something produced by intelligence and what is something produce by thoughtless or random processes. THAT some over-zealous religious type (and some anti-religious scientistic types) have muddied the waters is no reason to keep a clear, clean, and true scientific eye on this subject. And as you said, there are philosophical aspects to I.D. as well. But there are not only philosophical aspects, especially regarding evolution, if you catch my genetic drift.

If evolutionary scientists can show how, say, a bacterial flagellum can be produced through natural selection, then intelligent design in regards to irreducible complexity may just turn out to be a "god of the gaps" sort of thing. But it also might not. This is cutting edge stuff right now. Wise religious types (such as yourself, perhaps?) have no doubt seen things like this played out before and know the danger of putting one�s religious eggs in a irreducible complexity basket. But as things stand right now I think there is much in I.D. in regards to evolution to take seriously, although until more and better proofs can be gathered (which would surely consist of some type of disproof of a natural selection process in terms of things such as a flagellum) it would be saner to, as you said, not push I.D. as Creation Science 2.0.

All good points, Brad. Maybe it would help to clarify what the theory of evolution proposes (and what it does not say).

When I was studying biology in the 60s and 70s (took every course, got a M.S., didn't complete Ph.D. dissertation to enter lay ministry), the head guru was Ernst Mayr, whose teachings still stand the test of time. This page describes some of his key contributions. We also studied Dobhzansky and Simpson along with a few others. Great scholars and marvelous scientists, who stayed within the framework of science and left the philosophical and theological implications of their work be investigated and discussed by others.

What these men did was expand upon our understanding of natural selection in the light of our understanding of DNA and genetic mechanisms. Their understanding of natural selection was as follows:

quote:

natural selection: The differential survival and reproduction of classes of organisms that differ from one another in on or more usually heritable characteristics. Through this process, the forms of organisms in a population that are best adapted to their local environment increase in frequency relative to less well-adapted forms over a number of generations. This difference in survival and reproduction is not due to chance.

Now when they say it's not "due to chance," they mean to say that it's due to "adaptability," and they focus on the mechanisms and processes of adaptability in populations of genomes, or reproductively compatible individuals.

What you can see from this is that the theory of evolution, in its most modern expressions, has a very specific focus. It's not about explaining how amino acids and protein precursors of DNA came about; it doesn't even "kick in" until genomes are on the planet, which is to say that it has no opinion on how life came about in the first place -- only how it diversifies and adapts through time. And this it explains very well -- not perfectly -- but well-enough to be predictive in many cases, and certainly to satisfy the criteria of "repeatability," which is one of the hallmarks of good scientific explanation. Still, life being life and not inanimate chemicals, absolute predictability and repeatability are impossible to achieve, as the environment presents a variable that cannot be completely controled, especially in nature.

When we start raising questions of meaning and looking for purpose in creation, we're outside of the realm of science. I know that scientists do this, but that's not science when they do; it's philosophy. And philosophical explanation has a different set of concerns to attend to than scientific explanation does, and shouldn't be presented as an alternative scientific explanation. That's why I'm adamantly against ID being taught as an "alternative to evolution." It's not an alternative; it has no scientific hypotheses and no methodology that can test anything (as there's no scientific test for God).

I don't have objection to philosophic and theological explanations and reflections being discussed when evolution is brought up, but we need to keep in mind that once that door is opened, we have to allow all sorts of creation mythologies to be presented as well, and not just those we happen to like as Christians. Pandora's box!

Phil said: That's why I'm adamantly against ID being taught as an "alternative to evolution."

Agreed. More work needs to go into I.D. in reference to evolution in order to have much at all to teach. There are some interesting points, for sure (such as bacterial flagellum), but at this point most of the fruits of I.D., at least in terms of evolution, are philosophical. But there�s no inherent reason that couldn�t change. We�ll have to wait and see.

But I think the whole controversy surrounding I.D. exposes much more than just a few overzealous religious types who want to implement Creationism 2.0. I think it exposes the anti-creationist bias and shows how a new bias has replaced it: the naturalist/scientistic bias. This is likely why this is such a tender and emotional subject area to many scientists and scientific supporters (and religious antagonists).

But the facts is that science talks about "nature" and the assumption of that notion contains, I think, vast amounts of philosophical baggage. We could, if we wanted, and without adding one more whit of baggage, refer to evolution as "the process of God". We could, of course (as is common now) refer to it as little more than "the process of nature". In the former, our assumptions are obvious. In the latter, our assumptions are there as well but better hidden. When science finds and describes some repeatable aspect of nature (nature = "the stuff that exists around us, whatever it really is"), then it is on solid ground. But as soon as we assume either randomness (which is the typical view of "nature") or design then we are becoming philosophical/theological. It is not neutral ground to assume nature will always be, and always has been, random. It�s just possible that a Creator has, from time to time, flooded Creation with miracles. Now, because miracles are, by definition I suppose, not repeatable, science can probably say little about them unless we one day run head on into completely intractable problems (such as the bacterial flagellum). We might say that "someday we will solve this problem" but what if centuries later that "someday" never comes? Might we then make some reasonable inferences about a Creator�s hand having come into play, especially if there are hard, inexplicable gaps hanging around?

A theoretically ideal scientist would simply go about the world trying to find repeatable patterns. (And a series of inexplicable gaps in science could theoretically supply the data to reveal patterns that would be best explained by I.D.) He does so by formulating theories and making some assumptions (that what we call nature is intelligible, that the theories to describe core elements of it will ultimately be fairly simple and seem elegant, etc.) But there is nothing logically contradictory about assuming the possibility of intelligent design as a theory-starter or theory-informer. One can not find what one isn�t looking for and if one isn�t specifically NOT looking for something because one�s religious convictions have become overly timid in the face of scientism or because of one is simply anti-religious, then that is backward.

Many of us here assume that the universe has purpose and is the product of a purposeful Creator. We should hardly be surprised if that purpose did not show itself in the workings of nature. It need not, of course. Such intervention may be beyond our detection, and yet could not such Divine intervention leave a suggestive trail? It�s possible. Why rule this out? There are plenty of people working earnestly to wipe out ANY reason for a belief in religion because they think such "superstitious" beliefs are beneath reason, beneath science, and are at the core of all human misery. This is the reality, and this is perhaps the neo-Galileo-ism infecting our times, analogous and opposite to a time when the Church put down certain areas of inquiry because it threatened religious ideas. Whether I.D. is proven or not, I think we are often seeing the same thing. We are seeing ideas put down simply because they have a theological component to them. And so we come full circle.

A particularly daring scientist (and they are usually the ones who make the greatest discoveries) would not discount I.D. out of hand. But God gets the last laugh and I should laugh hard if a Nobel Prize someday goes to a man or woman who uses I.D. to break through some heretofore insoluble scientific problem. One never knows what true, good and fearless science has in store for us.

Phil said: What you can see from this is that the theory of evolution, in its most modern expressions, has a very specific focus. It's not about explaining how amino acids and protein precursors of DNA came about; it doesn't even "kick in" until genomes are on the planet, which is to say that it has no opinion on how life came about in the first place -- only how it diversifies and adapts through time.

That reminds me of the joke (it�s been posted somewhere around here before) where these scientists confront god and tell him that he isn�t needed anymore because they can now create life. So god challenges them to a contest. Each will make a woman out of dirt. The scientists agree and one of them reaches down to grab a handful of dirt but God interrupts: "No. You must first make your own dirt!"

Science can describe some very, very complex, elegant and downright fancy patterns that are found in nature. And finding these patterns is indeed a major accomplishment because a lot of useful gadgetry can then be built once we know the underlying patterns. But these are still attributes of something else. One could, for instance, built an enormous skyscraper out of Tinkertoys but only if first given the Tinkertoys with which to build it. Analogously, the atoms, quarks, leptons, and maybe even strings are a given. But what a given. I often think this whole I.D. isn�t so much about defending the boundaries of science against inappropriate intrusions by religion. It�s about inappropriately trying to expand the boundaries of science itself. Both realities obviously exist. But the overarching reality is that stuff exists and science can only tell us about what kind of repeatable patterns it can notice, not about how this stuff got here in the first place. One need not talk of purpose and intelligent design to find the limitations of science, which are many. And surely one need not try to shrink science in order to build up one�s religion or philosophy. It wouldn�t be much of a religion or philosophy if it couldn�t take in science or, in fact, did not wish to willingly and enthusiastically do so.

But it is a quite interesting thought to consider that evolution in principle can say nothing about the beginnings of life because evolution doesn�t "kick in" as applicable until, as you said, dealing with existing genomes. And with quantum uncertainty seemingly masking all influences at the smallest level (where surely a mutation here or mutation there can be caused, or orchestrated, easily enough), and matter and energy itself inexplicable as to their THATness, the question isn�t if intelligent design exists. Will all this mystery, and all this order out of chaos, I think the question is "Does �random� as an idea really have any meaning?"

That's quite a closing thought, Brad.

I often think this whole I.D. isn�t so much about defending the boundaries of science against inappropriate intrusions by religion. It�s about inappropriately trying to expand the boundaries of science itself. Both realities obviously exist. But the overarching reality is that stuff exists and science can only tell us about what kind of repeatable patterns it can notice, not about how this stuff got here in the first place. One need not talk of purpose and intelligent design to find the limitations of science, which are many.

Exactly!

And surely one need not try to shrink science in order to build up one�s religion or philosophy. It wouldn�t be much of a religion or philosophy if it couldn�t take in science or, in fact, did not wish to willingly and enthusiastically do so.

Right, and there's the rub! Most of the ID proponents don't really seem to understand or care much about science or see how it exists as a discipline apart from philosophy and theology. Theirs is a premodern worldview, into which they seem hopelessly locked in large part because of their legalistic and literalistic view of Scripture. Hence, any theory that doesn't reference God must be "atheistic" and so they regard evolution as an "atheistic philosophy." You can't really get anywhere in a discussion with these people -- they just shut down (even in my classes on critical thinking skills and current issues). Once their premodern worldview (Spiral Dynamics Purple - Blue) is challenged, that's the end of rational discussion.

That's quite a closing thought, Brad.

Thank you. I owe much of what little I know regarding this stuff to you and your Cajun friend.

You can't really get anywhere in a discussion with these people -- they just shut down (even in my classes on critical thinking skills and current issues). Once their premodern worldview (Spiral Dynamics Purple - Blue) is challenged, that's the end of rational discussion.

Do you do those classes online, face-to-face in a classroom, or both? Sounds interesting�and far more challenging than I could handle. I'm afraid I'd start shouting at them or something!

I wonder if this is a matter of personality type or the way people have been taught their religion? An interesting book that I'm reading right now (I'm through 114 pages�so far so good) is The Divine Conspiracy by Dallas Willard. The author points out a number of ways that Christianity is incorrectly taught that leads to problems. Here's a good summary from Amazon.com:

quote:

Dallas Willard's grasp of the Christian life as exposited by Christ himself, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount, is absolutely compelling. Willard mildly castigates both the theological Right and Left for, respectively, emphasizing saving faith alone in the Christian life as though how we live our lives on earth doesn't really make a difference, and preaching a 'social gospel' bereft of the spiritual or eternal significance that gives it its meaning or moral impetus. He then goes on to put forward a very vivid picture, using a wonderfully consistent and contextual view of Jesus' teachings, of what God intends for our lives here on earth. The author's treatment of the subject seems entirely original and unfettered by the various passing trends of thought that seem to color so many Christian books, and as such also sounds almost radical. But read it for what it is, and you'll find it to be as clear and natural an interpretation of Kingdom living as you'll ever hear.

Dallas Willard is a good guy, even though Helminiak takes him to task for his approach to reconciling psychology and religion.

Willard mildly castigates both the theological Right and Left for, respectively, emphasizing saving faith alone in the Christian life as though how we live our lives on earth doesn't really make a difference, and preaching a 'social gospel' bereft of the spiritual or eternal significance that gives it its meaning or moral impetus.

That's all mostly directed to evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. Catholic and mainline Protestand traditions don't have this split between faith and action.

----

I do think some of the issues re. ID have to do with personality types. E.g., those of my students (classroom setting) who seem most resistant are sensate-feeling types, who aren't naturally prone to make intellectual distinctions of the sort that I'm teaching re. scientific theory vs. philosophical hypothesis. They're quite capable of doing so, however, but it doesn't come easily for them.

I don't think personality type is the issue when a particular church tradition denounces evolution as an "atheistic philosophy." People whose faith is formed in that kind of tradition are going to naturally associate the anti-evolution bias with Christian teaching, and might eventually feel constrained to choose between the two, in which case they'll choose "God," of course.

I don't think personality type is the issue when a particular church tradition denounces evolution as an "atheistic philosophy." People whose faith is formed in that kind of tradition are going to naturally associate the anti-evolution bias with Christian teaching, and might eventually feel constrained to choose between the two, in which case they'll choose "God," of course.

Slipping back into a "Abandonment to Divine Providence" mode in which one sees everything that is in one's day, in one's path, and in one's life as exactly as it should be, in total, (no ifs, ands or buts), one sees how astonishingly and completely our lives are impacted by science. Heck, our lives were, of course, impacted before this just as much by raw un-processed nature herself even before the first Walkman was invented. It's just a different impact these days. We can decry technology and materialism (as I will do from time to time), but all this stuff is just raw nature put through a little human post-processing. And because humans are products of God's post-processing, so to speak, it's not a great leap to see all this technology and "stuff" that is all around us as direct products of the Divine.

I don't need design to be proven scientifically at the nuts-and-bolts level of genomes because I'm already quite impressed with the invention of science (its ability to exist) in the first place (not to mention the ability of such incredible systems as protein production to exist, no matter how such systems are built). And I'm just as impressed with quarks and leptons and photons and fields. Would one really want, and could one really expect better proof of intelligent design then the workings and existence of nature itself?

It could be argued that only a bungler or incompetent would have to go back in and tweak nature every so often to get what He, She or It wanted. Of course, if One did desire to do such a thing then it would likely be elegantly implemented. It might even be as clever as something such as quantum indeterminacy.

Here's a good article from NRO, but the author makes the same mistake so many others have, confusing scientific theory with philosophy. He might be proposing a helpful breakthrough, however, in his distinction between evolution with a small e and its more philosophical aspect, which is with a large E. But such E-volution would be philosophy, not science, so we're back to the point I've been making all along.

A problem he doesn't address is where to draw the line when you start allowing competing philosophies to be presented. Every culture has its mythologies on this topic, and they could be given philosophical expression.

Scientists should stick to teaching e-volution, which Mr. Wood acknowledges to be "an intellectually robust theory that gives coherent order to a huge range of disparate facts." Well, yeah! Then:

quote:

While I am a proponent of small-e evolution, I recognize that it doesn't provide satisfactory answers to some key questions. We don't have compelling answers to how life began on earth, whether the self-organizing stuff that we recognize as life depends on earth-like chemistry, or whether nature's profligate complexity is inevitable.

OK, but why is e-volution supposed to explain that? I've noted its limitations above, but the kinds of questions being raised now begin to move toward philosophy, to some extent. Others are areas that science might one day be able to shed more light. See?

Peter Wood: And a good case can be made that the rapidly expanding brain of human ancestors over the last million or so years came about as part of a feedback loop with manual dexterity.

One of the most convincing explanations I�ve heard for this is that when man began to walk upright (and we can certainly argue how and why this came to be so � I think it was because it gave him a distinct advantage in warfare and predator defense), he was then able to support a bigger brain. The brain is apparently a relatively enormous burden on the body�s resources. It requires a lot of blood and it must be kept cool. Walking upright we not only expose far less of the body�s surface area to the sun, but much more of that body (particularly the brain) is crucially a few feet higher off the ground. At ground level temperatures are by far at their hottest. Bipeds have a distinct cooling advantage and can support a bigger brain.

Peter Wood: At an interview with some reporters from Texas on August 1, President Bush parried a question about whether schools should teach "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution by saying, "I think part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."

It would be interesting to see if there would have been such a controversy had some new "unintelligent design" theory been making the scientific circuit � a theory that somehow strengthened a raw, unintelligent, random and pointless concept of nature. Would those who are so knee-jerkingly opposed to I.D. be averse to teaching some interesting and possibly important theory in order "to expose people to different schools of thought"? I doubt it. I don�t think they�d bat an eyelash. I don�t think it would even cross their minds that such a theory would in any way be controversial. And thus we see how little "e" is used to promote big "E". Mind you, I don�t think there�s anything wrong with promoting big "E". It�s certainly a possibility, as is Creation. But if we honor science then we must honor truth, and it sure looks like the truth is that neither big "E" nor Creation has any kind of advantage over the other in terms of scientific evidence. They are both open questions. If, however, one day one or the other is somehow supported better by scientific evidence then by all means, let�s teach one as more probably than the other. But I don�t think we�re at that point. If I�m wrong, please correct me.

Peter Wood: But to speak of the beginning of culture and the emergence of our species by way of some genetic mutations from anatomically similar ancestors does little to explain the profound mystery of the event. Of course, if we are convinced in advance that genetic mutation is a random, material event, the results of which are sorted out by the struggle for survival, the immense mystery dissolves into happenstance blips in strands of East African DNA, c. 150,000-200,000 years ago.

But at that point, we have moved beyond scientific evolution to doctrinaire Evolution. The randomness of the mutation cannot be demonstrated or proved; it is simply an article of belief, no different in character from a belief that an intelligent Creator nudged the adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine bases of that DNA strand into the right order. Or that he took the clay of archaic homo sapiens and molded Adam in His own image.

That�s interesting. I think WC was talking about stuff like epigenetics. I�m not entirely sure what that is in total, but is it possible that our thoughts, emotions, beliefs and attitudes could have an effect on our DNA? If so, that has profound implications. It would tie culture (including religious belief) directly to how our bodies form. It seems certain that there are mutations caused by radiation or chemicals, of course. Perhaps also there is tinkering going on by the Creator. (Heck, if I were the Creator I simply couldn�t resist the fun of messing around with nature like it was some giant chemistry set.) Does science have any factual idea what causes most or all mutations?

Peter Wood: At bottom the dispute between Evolutionists and Creationists always comes down to the question, "What is random?"

I agree. It�s funny that the reductionist view is used for everything BUT the idea of randomness. I�m vaguely aware of complications at the quantum level. And I�m aware of that Einstein didn�t like the implications of those complications. He said, in essence, "God does not play dice!" But even though we supposedly, in principle, can not delve down deeper because of the uncertainty principle, why is not there the natural urge to assume that there is some logical or hidden explanation underneath (just as scientist assume that the Big Bang was not an act of Creation but just one of supposedly countless Big Bangs)? Is it because that if we assume underlying causes to what we call "random" at the quantum level, that we would be putting a dagger into the heart of this idea of a universe based on randomness? I think so.

Whether the universe is truly random or whether apparent randomness is order-not-yet-apprehended seems pretty clearly a philosophical or theological debate�Actually, a line of argument that depends on seeing events as random is in a rather worse position than one that postulates, even if it can't prove, underlying order. In science, what's random today is frequently modeled tomorrow. To base a theory of life on ever-more-emphatic repetition of the idea that, "No, it's random," is a bit like stamping your foot and saying, "It's so because I say it's so."

Never heard it put like that before. Good point. My hunch is that Einstein will be proven correct. God does not play dice. There is no such thing as true randomness. I can�t prove that yet. If I could then I would meet you all in Stockholm.

Peter Wood: I don't carry a brief for Michael Behe, the intelligent-design proponent at Lehigh University, or the movement that he has started. But I also don't think science is well served by elevating to the status of unquestionable truth the image of a material universe governed solely by random and otherwise inexplicable events. That's a worldview, not a scientific conclusion, and it has no better claim to our intellectual assent than views that postulate an underlying purpose, meaning, or destination for humanity.

I agree. Commentary like that belongs, in fact, in a textbook!

Peter Wood: Ironically, the Creationists have come out of this recent round of controversy sounding far more open-minded than some of the scientists and the hard-core secularist advocates of Evolution-and-Nothing-But. If we had the equivalent of a Scopes trial today, I would wager Rev. Barry Lind would get to play the part of William Jennings Bryan, unwilling to think about what he is unwilling to think about.

LOL. Good observation, I think.

Meanwhile, across the waters at Seoul National University, Hwang Woo-suk and his colleagues have created Snuppy, a cloned Afghan hound. Experts say the first cloning of a dog clears some technical hurdles for cloning the first human. If and when that occurs, I wonder whether cloned humans will be disposed to see themselves as products of natural selection or of intelligent design? Probably that's a false set of alternatives. Evolution and intelligent design will have both played a role.

No! No! In order to be consistent, scientists then must relegate themselves to unintelligent random entities.

You�re right, Phil. That was a good article.

Non-random Phil said: A problem he doesn't address is where to draw the line when you start allowing competing philosophies to be presented. Every culture has its mythologies on this topic, and they could be given philosophical expression.

Maybe the best answer is simply to squeeze the scientism out of the presentation of science. But surely it would not be out of place to discuss a little philosophy alongside science. One needn�t simply relegate this stuff to philosophy class because one thinks it "too hot to handle". There is surely much merit to at least a brief discussion of the philosophical aspects of evolution in conjunction with the scientific ones, if only to show this crucial distinction. But in today�s politically correct multiculturalist climate it might not be such a horrible idea to relegate the philosophy to a philosophy-only class, because by the time you got done discussing the one hundred and forty-seven different world theologies or philosophies that related to big "E" Evolution (leaving anyone out would be considered rude, possibly even "intolerant") you wouldn�t have much time left to teach the small "e" evolution.

I don�t get invited to be on many school boards.

Intelligently designed Phil said: OK, but why is e-volution supposed to explain that?

Good point.

Ho, hum, yawn, heavy sigh...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

"Gonna get on my knees and pray...
we won't get fooled again!"- Pete Townsend (The Who)

ohyeoflittlefaith.com

More evidence for the New McCarthyism, the new Galileo-ism, and the true nature of the "tolerant" left. Arrogance, prejudice, and bigotry is alive and well especially among those who purport to be their staunchest opponents. I encountered similar views not a million miles away from here among supposed "free thinkers."

Unintelligent Design
Hostility toward religious believers at the nation�s museum.
By David Klinghoffer

quote:

However strong you think the argument is for Intelligent Design � and I'm no scientist � most reasonable people would agree that an ID theoretician should, without fear of retaliation, be allowed to state his case for the consideration of fellow scientists. This was the view held by Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of ID. However, according to the OSC's investigation, when the Meyer article was published, Sternberg's managers were outraged and a number of them sought a strategy that would make him pay.

Writes the OSC's McVay: "Within two weeks of receiving the Meyer article in the Proceedings, four managers at the SI and NMNH [National Museum of Natural History] expressed their desire to have your access to the SI denied." A typical internal e-mail on the subject fumed, "I hope we are not even considering extending his access to space." (All quotations from e-mails given here are taken from the OSC's letter to Sternberg.) Another expresses frustration that a good pretext for dismissing him had so far not been identified: "As he hasn't (yet) been discovered to have done anything wrong,... the sole reason to terminate his appt seems to be that the host unit has suddenly changed its mind. If that's OK w/NMNH, let me know and I'll send him a letter stating so." One manager huffed, "Well, if you ask me, a face-to-face meeting or at least a 'you are welcome to leave or resign' call with this individual is in order." The same e-mail indicated that a manager had been compiling trivial offenses by Sternberg that could be cited in telling him to get out. Among other things, the Smithsonian staffer had gone over Sternberg's library records. He "has currently 50 books checked out from the SI library (I checked this with the library)."

quote:

And yet, quite apart from Sternberg's treatment, the e-mail traffic at the Smithsonian gives ample evidence not of respect for ordinary Americans but of contempt, especially if those Americans are religious believers. One senior SI staffer commented ruefully about the Meyer article in an e-mail quoted in the OCS document: "We are evolutionary biologists, and I am sorry to see us made into the laughing stock of the world [by publishing Meyer's article criticizing Darwinian theory], even if this kind of rubbish [that is, Intelligent Design] sells well in backwoods USA." One e-mail generously granted, "Scientists have been perfectly willing to let these people alone in their churches." Another from a scientist at the museum told of how, after "spending 4.5 years in the Bible Belt," the writer had learned how to deal with religious Christians. For example, he described the "fun we had" when "my son refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance because of the 'under dog' [meaning presumably the 'under God'] part."

However strong you think the argument is for Intelligent Design � and I'm no scientist � most reasonable people would agree that an ID theoretician should, without fear of retaliation, be allowed to state his case for the consideration of fellow scientists.

I disagree with this point, as ID is not a scientific hypothesis. I cannot for the life of me fathom why everyone doesn't see this. Evolution is simply a scientific theory and it doesn't even contradict ID, so the whole idea of having to choose between is a false dilemma fallacy. You can believe in the theory of evolution AND intelligent design. The problem, here, is that Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists don't even want anyone believing in the theory of evolution, the reason being that they're essentially pre-modernists with little imagination who can't conceive how to reconcile their theology with science.

I disagree with this point, as ID is not a scientific hypothesis.

I'm not sure the "many worlds" theory is a hypothesis either by that definition. Can it be tested? It's possible that string theory isn't a hypothesis either if there is no possibility of verifying it one way or another (and apparently this is a real possibility). But articles about either would not be controversial among the same scientists for whom anything even remotely tinged with religion is like dangling wolf bane in front of Dracula, such is their reaction. That's not the spirit of true scientific inquiry. That's flat-out bigotry and narrow-mindedness. Christianity has moved on (well, most of it, anyway) to integrating and distinguishing between faith and reason while apparently more than a few scientists are still stuck in a Middle Ages mentality.

I think this page can help to clarify the semantics. You'll just love the car analogy, I'm sure.

The telling factor is "explanatory power" within the framework of the questions posed, and the nature of those questions is what separates science and philosophy. For a theory to be scientific rather than philosophic, it must be supported by empirical data and must be able to predict certain outcomes.

I think something like "string theory" could well be more scientific than philosophical, only the kind of data its working with is very difficult to measure.

"Intelligent" design is not and cannot be a scientific theory because you cannot scientifically demonstrate or prove an intelligent dynamic to be at work in the process of life's unfolding. Neither can you predict how that intelligence might work yet. That all falls outside the province of scientific inquiry, but is entirely appropriate for philosophical and theological investigation.

The arrogance and narrow-mindedness of scientists -- especially those who propose some kind of evolutionary philosophy as all-encompassing and totally explanatory -- does not justify teaching ID as an "alternative scientific theory." It could and should be taught as an "alternative philosophical explanation" for the origin and diversification of life, however. But that's not what the fundamentalists want. They want it taught as an alternative "scientific theory" wherever and whenever evolution is taught. I'm with the scientists in resisting this confusion of disciplines.

"Intelligent" design is not and cannot be a scientific theory because you cannot scientifically demonstrate or prove an intelligent dynamic to be at work in the process of life's unfolding.

Think bigger, Phil. What about any evidence collected after death?!

The arrogance and narrow-mindedness of scientists -- especially those who propose some kind of evolutionary philosophy as all-encompassing and totally explanatory -- does not justify teaching ID as an "alternative scientific theory." It could and should be taught as an "alternative philosophical explanation" for the origin and diversification of life, however. But that's not what the fundamentalists want. They want it taught as an alternative "scientific theory" wherever and whenever evolution is taught. I'm with the scientists in resisting this confusion of disciplines.

Well, I�m really not for collapsing this all down so quickly into a science vs. fundamentalism dichotomy. That simply serves the purposes of entrenched ideas, not the spirit of discovery. And that�s a ploy that the scientists are using. If ID is simply not good science (or science at all, as you say), then someone please write some intelligent rebuttals to some of the papers being offered and be done with it. Surely these papers in support of ID are not just ravings from some stereotypical religious fundamentalist. I assume there is real content in these peer-reviewed articles.

If someone can convince me that the whole subject of ID is no more than a surreptitious attempt by disingenuous fundamentalists to inappropriately insert religion into the process of scientific discovery then I will change my opinion. Is someone can convince me that ID is no more than another "crank" pseudo-science reminiscent of the likes of this kind of crap, then again, I will change my opinion. But if such stuff can not be so easily dismissed by highly trained and educated scientists via the use of reason and logic and they instead feel the need to resort to Mafioso techniques, then that is enough for me to keep the subject open for now.

Thanks for that link, Phil. I�ll scope that out later.

There should be thousands and thousands of transitional forms in the fossil record, and yet there are NONE. I therefore have three problems with
macroevolution.

1) The complete absence of transitional forms

2) The complete absence of transitional forms

3) The complete absence of transitional forms

Ok, four, the millions who die every year from the ideas that follow...

There should be thousands and thousands of transitional forms in the fossil record, and yet there are NONE. I therefore have three problems with macroevolution.

I wouldn�t say there are none. Isn�t Archaeopteryx considered a sort of in-between form, MM? But I certainly am not versed in the various inadequacies of, and good objections to, the theory of natural selection. But it sure does seem like evolution wasn�t a steady, slow process. It went in fits and starts, in almost literally explosions of development. No one, at least to my knowledge (and you may have pointed this out yourself) has a good explanation for the so-called Cambrian explosion. That doesn�t mean that the Hand of God was involved or can be proved to have been involved. It might have been some weird increase in radiation or something. Maybe a meteor shower. Maybe weird sun activity. But looking at how nature seems to relentlessly plod on via the seemingly inviolable and inflexible laws of natural selection (however incomplete and crude a form those laws may be in now), I�m not inclined to offer god as an explanation for any gaps�unless those gaps become intractable and form some kind of pattern that suggests intelligent influences. I certainly think that is possible and that is why I consider ID a science even though gathering evidence for it might be difficult.

Gents, the miracle is that there are fossils that we can examine. And there are transitional forms of all kinds between reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, and between various families within phyla.

Again, evolution is simply a theory to explain the mechanism for the diversification of life -- genetic variability, natural selection, shifting genomes, etc. in response to a changing environment. That's all been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, now. The question is just how much can be accounted for in this manner? Science answers even this by saying "no more than the data can support," so there's a boundary.

If ID is simply not good science (or science at all, as you say), then someone please write some intelligent rebuttals to some of the papers being offered and be done with it. Surely these papers in support of ID are not just ravings from some stereotypical religious fundamentalist. I assume there is real content in these peer-reviewed articles.

The rebuttals are that the papers aren't proposing scientific theories as alternatives, but philosophical explanations. And it is mostly "explanation-of-the-gaps" kinds of things. It's also being pushed by evangelical and fundamentalist Christians.

I did a quick search and came up with a few pages that provide a critique of ID. Click here and here, the latter being a very simple comparison. Finally, this one provides good evidence of its link with creationism and points out something that hardly ever gets mentioned:

quote:

It seems to me that there is another problem with ID -- while life has many awe inspiring features it also has its resounding failures. If we are to accept ID then we must also accept Intelligent Design Failure. The mammalian eye may be a wonderful thing but what about the human appendix? Speaking of the eye, why are its photoreceptors on the back of the retina? Wouldn't a better design be to put them on the front? That's the way a film camera works. (Most CCD's have their photodiodes on the back because that's the easy way to make them -- but not all and specifically not the best.)

There are countless ways in which the human body could be improved. Scientific American published an article on this -- If Humans Were Built to Last -- in its March, 2001 issue. Almost everybody becomes aware especially as they age of the many ways we could (and with medical technology sometimes do) improve our bodies. It hardly seems worth elevating some of the obviously ad hoc ways living things work to the level of "design". In fact we often think that we ourselves could do better. Wouldn't a real designer have done the same? And if not then at least they would provide improvements and replacements for their design failures. Where are these? It is not just evolution which needs evidence of change and improvement over time.